The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Hand-Camera Coordination Varies over Time in Users of the Argus® II Retinal Prosthesis System
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnsys.2016.00041 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael P. Barry, Gislin Dagnelie |
| Abstract |
Most visual neuroprostheses use an external camera for image acquisition. This adds two complications to phosphene perception: (1) stimulation locus will not change with eye movements; and (2) external cameras can be aimed in directions different from the user's intended direction of gaze. Little is known about the stability of where users perceive light sources to be or whether they will adapt to changes in camera orientation. Three end-stage retinitis pigmentosa patients implanted with the Argus II participated in this study. This prosthesis stimulated the retina based on an 18° × 11° area selected within the camera's 66° × 49° field of view. The center of the electrode array's field of view mapped within the camera's field of view is the camera alignment position (CAP). Proper camera alignments minimize errors in localizing visual percepts in space. Subjects touched single white squares in random locations on a darkened touchscreen 40 or more times. To study adaptation, subjects were given intentional CAP misalignments of 15-40° for 5-6 months. Subjects performed this test with auditory feedback during (bi-)weekly lab sessions. Misaligned CAPs were maintained for another 5-6 months without auditory feedback. Touch alignment was tracked to detect any adaptation. To estimate localization stability, data for when CAPs were set to minimize errors were tracked. The same localization test as above was used. Localization errors were tracked every 1-2 weeks for up to 40 months. Two of three subjects used auditory feedback to improve accuracy with misaligned CAPs at an average rate of 0.02°/day (p < 0.05, bootstrap analysis of linear regression). The rates observed here were ~4000 times slower than those seen in normally-sighted subjects adapting to prism glasses. Removal of auditory feedback precipitated error increases for all subjects. Optimal CAPs varied significantly across test sessions (p < 10(-4), bootstrap multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)), up to 21-29° within subjects over the observed period. Across subjects, optimal CAPs showed an average rate of change of 0.39°/day (SD 0.36°/day). Optimal CAPs varied dramatically over time for all subjects. Subjects displayed no adaptation to misaligned CAPs without feedback. Regular recalibration of CAPs may be required to maintain hand-camera coordination. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 28% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 28% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 10 | 25% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 15% |
| Psychology | 4 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 25% |
| Unknown | 4 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,146,657
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#573
of 1,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,316
of 298,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#15
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,344 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.